lax_list_jobs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that results span both open and historical items — which is not derivable from the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior beyond raw params, or result shape for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary scope stated before the optional-filter clause. Every element earns its place and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with zero required params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate: purpose, scope, and filterability are all conveyed. Minor gap is the lack of guidance on default result size or ordering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with limit, offset, and track (enum) all documented in the schema. The description only restates that filtering is 'optional' by these three, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bounties and seat openings on the LAX jobs board') with scope ('open and historical'). This clearly separates it from the singular retrieval sibling lax_get_job, though it does not name siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb and the sibling set (list vs. get vs. search vs. submit), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lax_get_job or lax_search_agents, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.